Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=Hopes;13353058]
High risk rates need to be eliminated. It is outright discrimination to charge more for people with illnesses and disabilities. We all could end up considered high risk at any point in our lives. And that point in our lives is when we would be in the least position to pay higher premiums since we wouldn't be able to work. quote]
Is it outright discrimination to charge people more for auto insurance b/c they have been in at-fault accidents and are likely to cost the insurer more money than safe drivers?
My understanding is that the current health care bill will outlaw this practice, however, it will only result in higher premiums for everyone. The insurance companies are determined to make a profit so they will consider the new pool of people with prior conditions when setting their next rate hike. People who have pre-existing conditions will be entitled to purchase health insurance, but may not be able to afford it.
In my opinion, the greatest failure of this bill is that it doesn't offer a government-run option. Why not extend Medicaid to everyone and make people pay on a sliding-scale basis based on income? That would force the insurance companies to be more competitive b/c people would have an alternative.
So should the government stop providing schools? (remember this is a parenting forum and I want to discuss this with parents)
.................................................. .................................................. ...
I have one kid and one young adult (who just turned 18) and honestly the situation with healthcare in the USA scares me to death.
I have argued this healthcare reform thing in a number of forums and it is clear to me that a majority of Americans at least say they don't want Obama's healthcare reform. The problem is that it is very unclear what they do want. Ask ten people and you'll get ten very different answers. There is little consensus on exactly what needs to be done. Everybody seems to agree that "things cannot go on the way they have" (8% annual growth in healthcare costs), yet no one is ready to make the hard sacrifices that need to be made to stop this runaway train.
I think Europe, Australia, Ireland, Japan, and even Taiwan have figured out that you can't rely on the free market to allocate healthcare. That seems a no-brainer to me. If the free market works the way its supposed too, than those most in need of healthcare--the chronically ill, the profoundly injured, the disabled--won't be able to afford it. There is no profit in insuring people who need a wide range of healthcare services and have little ability to pay the bill for them. On the other hand, young healthy people don't need the equivalent of Cadillac health insurance plans that pay for even cosmetic surgery and other services that aren't medically necessary. These groups are encouraged to buy more healthcare than they need under a free market system. The first thing we need to accept is the market is too flawed a mechanism to distribute healthcare services. And those who disagree better be prepared to make a real argument instead of calling this approach "socialistic" (sorry guys not an argument at all).
A comparison between government-run Medicare and private insurance plans demonstrates just how ridiculous private healthcare plans are. Administrative costs eat up approximately 24% of the premiums paid for private health insurance plans. With Medicare, that figure drops to 8%. In other words, almost all Medicare dollars are actually paying to treat sick people. Administrative costs in private insurance plans are one of the key areas in which waste occurs.
I don't expect Obama's Plan to pass. Instead, we'll just have more of the same. I think this will continue until literally one day the whole system falls apart.
Our family has had health insurance since our younger child was about 5 years old. Even with insurance, we cannot always afford our deductibles and our co-pays because our incomes were not enough to cover living expenses and medical care. So our kids had to try to get over minor ailments for which we would have sought treatment if we could afford it.
For emergencies and serious illnesses, we have gone into debt, paying $20/month on as many a 12 medical bills at a time. Currently, we are still paying on diagnostic services from this time last year. Due to a job loss which cut our family income by half, we did not act on any of the diagnostic results, so we don't yet know if there is a tumor. The biopsy cost more than we could afford, as we were already spending a fourth of our income on other medical bills.
I just spent spring break caring for one child, still in college, who had surgery. I expect the bills to bill somewhere around $5000 after deductibles and co-pays. So we will still not be able to act on the cancer concerns. The other child is not in school and can only find part-time employment without benefits. He has a lump on his leg about which he is very concerned. Young men are not eligible for Medicaid in our state, and after his birthday, he was dropped from our insurance.
I don't know what the solution is, but I refuse to bankrupt my family due to medical bills. I know of too many cases where a patient died leaving $1 million in bills after insurance paid their share for the survivors to pay. There is no way I could ever pay off $1 million in bills, even if I worked until I was 80. It makes me wonder--what do other families do?
My understanding is that the current health care bill will outlaw this practice, however, it will only result in higher premiums for everyone. The insurance companies are determined to make a profit so they will consider the new pool of people with prior conditions when setting their next rate hike. People who have pre-existing conditions will be entitled to purchase health insurance, but may not be able to afford it.
From what I understand, premiums are going to be on a sliding scale according to income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaMc46
In my opinion, the greatest failure of this bill is that it doesn't offer a government-run option. Why not extend Medicaid to everyone and make people pay on a sliding-scale basis based on income? That would force the insurance companies to be more competitive b/c people would have an alternative.
They had to eliminate the public option to pass healthcare reform. In time, they will be able to pass further legislation. This bill is just the first step.
On the news down here in Australia today we were told that President Obama is delaying his trip to Australia and Indonesia because he is trying to get his health care reforms through the parliment.
I am writing here because I am curious about how parents view this. We get the idea that for some reason, there is a strong objection in the USA to government assistance in the medical area. It gets portrayed as comunist or government control. The fact that even in the US, the government provides other public services such as education, fire department but for some reason it appears that providing medical help is seen as comunist. Mind you there are those of us over seas who wonder if the government financial guarantees to the big end of town led to the financial crisis yet no governement assistance for medical seems to somehow be seen as the bets way to go.
Now down here is Australia, there is free government funded health care and also you can, if you have the money, have private health care. That way you do not get the situation where someone does not get treatment just because they don't have the money. Now its not perfect and at every change of governement they mess about with it but still we don't have the stories of people going un treated because they can't afford it.
Thoughts from parents?
Well, um basically it IS socialist/communist, or whatever you want to call it.
My main objection to it is that we do have government sponsored health care for the poor and the old, and those programs have seen constant escalations in costs, just as the privately funded health insurance plans have.
If you were going to hire someone to do a job, you'd want them to do it well, right? You'd look at their past track record to see how well they'd done, right? Well, government sponsored health care has fared poorly, and more government interference will not make it better.
Now, maybe things are better run in Australia than they are here. But in the US, there is lots of corruption and ineptitude, especially at the Federal level. Even with the best of intentions, it's extremely difficult to manage a program for a nation of 300 million people.
The track record of the US government is to throw money at problems and put off real reforms for a later day (too often, a day that never comes, or a day that doesn't come until there's a severe crisis). That is exactly what has been accomplished (if you want to call it an accomplishment) with the health care bill that just passed.
However, America is full of wishful thinkers who think if they just have the right guy in office all will be well. Nothing could be further from the truth, but try convincing the wishful thinkers of that.
Don't forget that in the US, you do have government funded schools and that seems to be OK.
You obviously don't live in America or you'd never say that. You mustn't read much, either.
On international comparisons of math & science the US always turns up at the bottom of developed countries. Sometimes 3rd World countries do better than the US.
We spend just as much money on schools as other countries do, but we get poor results. And the loudest voices for school reform think spending more money will fix it all. They're the same voices who think guaranteeing insurance for all will fix all or most of what ails our bloated and inefficient health care system (and I assure you, it won't).
The problem is that it is very unclear what they do want. Ask ten people and you'll get ten very different answers. There is little consensus on exactly what needs to be done. Everybody seems to agree that "things cannot go on the way they have" (8% annual growth in healthcare costs), yet no one is ready to make the hard sacrifices that need to be made to stop this runaway train.
I agree with you 100% here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I think Europe, Australia, Ireland, Japan, and even Taiwan have figured out that you can't rely on the free market to allocate healthcare. That seems a no-brainer to me. If the free market works the way its supposed too, than those most in need of healthcare--the chronically ill, the profoundly injured, the disabled--won't be able to afford it. There is no profit in insuring people who need a wide range of healthcare services and have little ability to pay the bill for them. On the other hand, young healthy people don't need the equivalent of Cadillac health insurance plans that pay for even cosmetic surgery and other services that aren't medically necessary. These groups are encouraged to buy more healthcare than they need under a free market system. The first thing we need to accept is the market is too flawed a mechanism to distribute healthcare services. And those who disagree better be prepared to make a real argument instead of calling this approach "socialistic" (sorry guys not an argument at all).
And now I'm going to prove your first statement is true by disagreeing with you here.
There's no reason that if we actually want to a mostly cash based system with no insurance company involvement, that we couldn't get good care. Insurance could be for catastrophes, but otherwise people could pay for their care out of pocket.
Alternatively, the government could subsidize a Health Savings Account for everyone (and then insurance would kick in once you hit your dollar limit) and let people keep the money they didn't spend from the account.
Switzerland has a system like this, which preserves the best aspects of a free market system while stil guaranteeing universal insurance coverage. America should do something similar. But the health care bill that just passed will most likely be just another convoluted mess that won't do anything to reign in costs, while racking up our ever increasing national debt.
For more on how we could do real health care reform here's a good read:
The reality is that the government is going to take over our healthcare system because the government doesn't have to balance their budget and because it's the government, they don't have to comply with state laws on how they provide insurance. Private companies can't compete and that should scare people (and I'm surprised it doesn't) because the government hasn't proven that they run anything well, especially when it comes to our kids. Remember the swine flu debacle? How about what happens to schools when politicians come out of a meeting and declare they are going to interfere with catchy phrases like "no child left behind"?
Does anyone honestly think that all of those without coverage who get the government plan are going to be able to call any doctor they want and have their sick child seen by a top-notch specialist? Have you been to the hospitals that take Medicare/Medicaid? They're usually packed, only provide "adequate" care and are quick to hustle you out the door. There was an article in the Denver Post a few weeks ago about women on Medicaid who have babies and according to the rules of the hospital, get sent home sooner than they should because Medicaid only pays for 24 hours (48 if you have a c-section). A woman went home and died from internal bleeding after delivery. Does this happen with regular insurance too? Sure...my sister is about to have a baby and she and her husband are praying things go well because it's a $500 co-pay for overnight hospital stays. But, again...we KNOW what's wrong with private insurance...but I think it's amazing that so many people think the government is going to provide better care than private insurance does. They aren't and I'd be willing to bet it will be on par with what patients on Medicare get and that isn't a good thing.
There are lot of things wrong with healthcare today. But I also believe that the American people (and Congress too) has a lot of stuff that they can agree on. I have never heard anyone (on the anti-healthcare bill side) say that someone with a preexisting condition should be dropped from their insurance plan. But I also don't think this is as common as those supporting the bill would have you believe. I have a preexisting condition as does my daughter. We don't have a "cadillac health plan" but we still get coverage and have never been denied. It's not cheap but it's not putting us in the poor house either and believe me, we are nowhere near wealthy.
Staying on the parenting topic...I do think that people who either don't have healthcare now or are wanting to get cheaper healthcare are going to be in a for a shock. The government is going to pay the bare-bones minimum for doctor care, just as they do for Medicare and Medicaid. Here in Denver, there are only a handful of hospitals that take Medicare/Medicaid and they are absolutely bursting at the seams. My daughter woke up with a fever last weekend and we took her to one of those walk-in clinics that are open on the weekends. When we were finished, we were waiting to pay our co-pay and I noticed signs all over the front desk area that said "we don't take medicare/medicaid, blue cross/blue shield, etc". When I mentioned it to the receptionist, she said they don't take those particular plans because they are slow to pay and when they do pay, it's significantly less than anyone else.
For those of us with kids, I am worried for those opting for the gov't healthcare plan. I have asked my pediatrician (who works in a group facility with about 10 doctors) and she already said that they don't take government healthcare (I assume it is Medicaid) and aren't going to take the government insurance either because of their inefficiency at paying their bills. She said they used to offer government insurance care (again, I'm assuming that was Medicaid), but that they had to hire 2 people specifically to deal nonstop with the red tape so they decided to phase that healthcare out. I know some people think "it's better to have gov't run care than nothing" but I will respectfully disagree. It's not going to be free...according to the law you will have to pay a certain % of your income for healthcare coverage...but I think you are going to be surprised at how many doors are closed to you and how many people are going to be scrambling to go to a handful of doctors that will take that insurance. As I said, our pediatrician does not but even then, to schedule a well-care visit, you have to call 3 months in advance. You can be seen for emergencies on a first-come first served basis, but any regular checkup must be made far in advance. Add another million people trying to get care and the lines are going to be huge. No one seems to ask where all of these doctors are going to come from. I've never heard of a doctor just sitting around waiting for patients...the good ones never are and in metro areas, even the bad ones are full. To be referred to a specialist, we had the paperwork done and when we called for an appointment, we were given a date 2 months away. I suppose I could have looked for a different specialist, but I wanted the one that had the best reputation. That meant waiting 2 months to get seen.
Right now, we all agree that the healthcare system is broken. I suppose that there are some who think that having an insurance card (even if it's from the government) is going to be great and they will be able to get the care they have always wanted but couldn't pay for. I wouldn't count on it and I really am worried about you. That's not being sarcastic...I think that there is going to be a severe doctor shortage and care shortage for people who are going to try and find a doctor who will take their government card. The rich people with the cadillac health plans are still going to get excellent care...they have the money to pay for it. Those on the government plan are going to get a list of doctors in their area who take their coverage (just like everyone else does who has an HMO) and I predict a never-ending busy signal and finally being told "sorry, we aren't taking any new patients at this time" message. It's not the doctor's fault...they need to make money too...it's the never ending coding and billing requirements in order to get reimbursed for the care they provide. The government took more than 2000 pages to explain the bill. Do you honestly think that this same government is going to make their billing process easier for those doctors who are willing to put in the time to see government insurance patients? I think we're all living in la-la land if you think the government makes anything easy and efficient and only a small number of doctors are going to be willing to hire the staff to negotiate the reimbursement process with the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
